I was thinking today about how Hasselbeck was released by the Titans earlier today, and how many fans have been clamoring to have him back. Now this is obviously not a phenomenon unique to Seattle; this happens a lot with many, many teams from all sports. But I was wondering if you guys think this sort of thinking of "he's a Seattle hero, bring him back for couple years before he retires" should have any role in running a team?

Let's say there are two different players Seattle can sign. One is slightly better than the other, let's say the slightly worse player is an old Seattle hero like Hasselbeck. Do you believe the team owes anything to the old Seattle player? Do you think that fact that the player is an old Seattle hero should play any part in evaluating the signing, or should the team just look at the players' skills in a vacuum, as if any other personal details don't matter?

Obviously teams don't evaluate like this all the time, or Ken Griffey wouldn't have been on the M's twice. (money talks?) Just wondering what you guys think on this matter. This isn't meant to be a Hasselbeck bash post at all, just kind of a general question spurred by the news of Hass being cut today and fan interest.

Seems like teams deep in tradition and history are less likely to cling to the past. But look a Brett Farve or Kurt Warner (Rams/Cards). Fans would take them back right now. You have to be a fair Front Office but you cannot let sentimentality key your decisions. Fans hate to see their long time heroes shown the door. Look at Marino or Tom Landry at the end of their careers. Even Bernie Kosar.

Fans cannot help themselves so they need a boogie man who gets to do the deed. Like Schneider with Matt. It had to be done and there are still those who regret the move but that is why he is paid top dollar to make those type of calls.

Let the fans long for the good ole times, the organization has to be about putting a winning product on the field. Maybe you can do one with the other but usually not.